A few may have taken in the link supplied to a lecture given by Thomas Campbell with regard to his MBT book he had written. Now, I was
drawn to the idea of a Venn diagram presented in his lecture and the
idea of how one might have use this diagram as a question about the
universe and it's subsets? How would you draw it?

I give a current posting by Sean Carroll with regards to his opinion on a
book written by Lawrence Krauss. So there all these theories about the
nature of the universe and some scientists of course have their
opinions.

............Or not, of course. We should be good empiricists and be open to the
possibility that what we think of as the universe really does exist
within some larger context. But then we could presumably re-define that
as the universe, and be stuck with the same questions. As long as you
admit that there is more than one conceivable way for the universe to be
(and I don’t see how one could not), there will always be some end of
the line for explanations. I could be wrong about that, but an
insistence that “the universe must explain itself” or some such thing
seems like a completely unsupportable a priori assumption. (Not that anyone in this particular brouhaha seems to be taking such a stance.)SEE:A Universe from Nothing?

Friday, June 26, 2009

"Here is a metaphor due to Eric Weinstein that I would have put in the book had I heard it before. Let us take a different twist on the landscape of theories and consider the landscape of possible ideas about post standard model or quantum gravity physics that have been proposed. Height is proportional to the number of things the theory gets right. Since we don’t have a convincing case for the right theory yet, that is a high peak somewhere off in the distance. The existing approaches are hills of various heights that may or may not be connected, across some ridges and high valleys to the real peak. We assume the landscape is covered by fog so we can’t see where the real peak is, we can only feel around and detect slopes and local maxima.

Counter arguments are good things if we can understand where this next step takes us.

People need to understand something about dialogue( Pirsig is being offered here as gesture of what I am paying forward by implication) as a means of bringing out the best of us and of each other. I could of course digress to the Socratic method of searching the population for the most "wisest of words" but we are living in a new age of media now aren't we?:)

I thought to replace Sean's head with Plato and Mark Troddens with Sir Francis Bacon, just to encapsulate further "the rhetoric" that seems "to find the most viable method of presenting the place were we can step off of," and if the moon step taken on one rung down would have you think of Michael Jackson current passing, this would be far from what stepping on new worlds should mean, although I would present his passing as a higher perspective of viewing the world from which he had lived in and shared.

Such conceptual boundaries are then moved in kind. Working the earth in higher geometrical perspective and it's curvature, is a Geometers historical place once part of the discussion of earth as a postulate, to find that all of this becomes part of what the earth as a pearl could look like for the very first time as that first space walk took place.

Photo from NASA of the Bullet Cluster

These stills show four stages from an artist's representation of the huge collision that is taking place in the bullet cluster. Hot gas, containing most of the normal matter in the cluster, is shown in red and dark matter is shown in blue. During the collision the hot gas in each cluster is slowed and distorted by a drag force, similar to air resistance. A bullet-shaped cloud of gas forms in one of the clusters. In contrast, the dark matter is not slowed by the impact because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. Therefore, the dark matter clumps from the two clusters move ahead of the hot gas, producing the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the image. More Images

Sunday, March 18, 2007

The color represents the strength of the polarized signal seen by WMAP - red strong/blue weak. The signal seen in these maps comes mostly from our Galaxy. It is strongest at 23 GHz, weakest at 61 and 94 GHz.

This multi-frequency data is used to subtract the Galactic signal and produce the CMB map shown (top of this page). These images show a temperature range of 50 microKelvin.

It is essential that while we are looking at this universe we understand the makeup and how it is being expressed. We also understand that while we knew the uiverse had to have it's motivation for that expression, it had to have other states of existance as well. This is related to the curvatures parameters and how differing times in the universe's expression this curvature had to be considered. These curvatures at one time in the whole context, as some cosmological constant varied, not seem relevant to the state of the universe?

So you have to explain it. Some may think I am less then desired in my understanding of General relativity, but you can be certain that understand Einstein's work in finding the "geometry of expression" was critical in understanding the "nature of gravity."

So by seeing this dynamical nature expressed did not mean you discounted how this universe was acting at various times to become what it is today. You had to find processes that would speak to this,and by defining the continuity of geometrical expression it was important to define this false vacuum in relation towhat the universe was doing as it unfolded itself and from strong curvature parameters settled itself to where it is today.

Did the universe have a negative density value relation that one could interpret? So you have to explain this as well in relation to what contributed ot the universe speeding up or slowing down. What local events within the cosmos could contribute to the universe in it's total expression?

While we talk about the universe I understand that there are "curvature parameters" that can be expressed, at any given time "within context of the whole universe." We had somehow forgotten these events as local expressions of galaxies "may contribute to the larger picture?"

I have been waiting I guess until the appropriate time that I could bring Q9's link of Linde's here for comparison, to what one may think of the landscape. You had to include all the information before this comment to know that what I am talking about has it's relation in the Anthropic Principle.

The title above is taken from Lee Smolin's paragraph listed below. Why I am using it will be come clear after a time in this post. I am working all night because of the duties of life, so I'll have to come back to it tomorrow. I am barely await has a continue to compile the data necessary for understanding the way I see this universe.

So while we get this sense here of the hills and valleys, what said that the current system had not taken into consideration the sombrero? The effects of gravity when it was once strong, and now is weak. We still get this sense of the universe doing things.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Height is proportional to the number of things the theory gets right. Since we don’t have a convincing case for the right theory yet, that is a high peak somewhere off in the distance. The existing approaches are hills of various heights that may or may not be connected, across some ridges and high valleys to the real peak. We assume the landscape is covered by fog so we can’t see where the real peak is, we can only feel around and detect slopes and local maxima.Lee Smolin

Without giving some coordinates to the thinking in Colour of Gravity I thought it important that such talk be given a new perspective that had not been considered in the context with how hierarchically how I gave meaning to such colours.

But the truth is, the Earth's topography is highly variable with mountains, valleys, plains, and deep ocean trenches. As a consequence of this variable topography, the density of Earth's surface varies. These fluctuations in density cause slight variations in the gravity field, which, remarkably, GRACE can detect from space.

First I must say that having the sceptic aligned within oneself is a good thing. To maintain a questioning state to what is ever introduced. For me as I read the exchanges between "Susskind and Smolin" it was not without understanding that I might want to instigate "two other minds in the string debate" to engage them to bring forth "good information" about the model in science, for and against.

Who would ever of thought to give correlate the differences we see on earth as topographical features to have thought "Colour of Gravity" has now been implemented along with sound?

Do not forget "Titan's descent" and what "measure" do we have? We might want to see the surface in a way that you had not seen it before? What I have written so far in this post should open up a new concept in terms of what these measures do for us.

So have I lost you in regards to "subjectivity." Was the science reduced to innuendos of all kinds while showing such disrespect? It is less then the desired in exchange. So I have tried to hold this high in my values.

But alas what happens sometimes though, is that we can start speaking past each other, while most distinctly I would prefer the conclusion drawn, where both would agree on the differences. Admit, they would be working to not only support their positions and the reasons why, but instigate others to continue to question and deal respectively with the continued debate. What is gravity?

The immediacy of reactive perceptions would ask that any gravity be held in context of the reaction measured in calorimetric design.

Moving to a "fifth dimensional" understanding was a necessary part of our evolution?

If you join "electromagnetism and and gravity" what will become of your views of the world around you? I am the product of such thoughts. While scientists had been engaged qualitatively, I had become what their equations would allow them too in model design.

So I had to carefully take you to this point to have enlisted the idea of the Mind Field. It's relation to what is hidden in the subtle ideas related to Colour of gravity. That we could have this "multiversity idea held to any scientists mind", while thinking of only the technologies? It had to also have it's subjective valuation too.

How could you think as a scientist and not include this aspect of the thinking mind. That it had some "ascension" to it in terms of "pyramidal qualities." Colours that I might assign? Or, that the "bubble as a sphere" would reflect the scientists mind, as if it was a relation to "earth time variable measures" in the thoughts sequences of experience? You will reflect this, not only on a "verbal level" but one you had not seen before.

Out in Right/Left Field

If one didn't have their own "heart song" what said they couldn't "tap their way?"

I am following behind on the different posts that I wanted to write. One of them in relation to the descent of a "measure gatherer" (sounds primitive doesn't it?) and the sound values produced from that "descent on Titan." Can make it "sound ancient" while current research is of value.

Almost, as if one is a cave dweller blowing dried paint over their hands, could possibly be thinking of fire and rays cast while their own shadows made them think of a sun that can enter the cave, and chains that need to be broken from thinking so circumspect..:)

The second one I wanted to talk about was in relation to Themis and the Aurora Borealis. The labels will hopefully help with my previous research that I had done as well as other perspectives that allowed me to see this sun earth relationship. Quasar has currently dealing with that topic further in "Coronal Mass Ejection" as well and Backreaction entitled, "NASA launch of THEMIS Satellite."

Anyway on to the essence of this post and why it is troubling to me. Many would not know what goes on in my head as I am currently looking at the relationship of the Bose Nova to the jet productions that issue from such spiralled tendency. Accretion disc and the idea of such spiralling, to a pipe that follows to making anti-matter productions?

See Water in Zero Gravity, by BackreactionHow did this all arise? So you see such an idea of the sphere in a vacuum is a point from which to begin the search for things that were not there before, so we now know that such collisions can indeed produce "new" information?

The action taken, although seems related to what Arivero is saying, and of course I already have much on this in terms of Han Jenny, and the taking of the Chaldni plate to spherical relations. As an experiment with a "balloons and dyes using sound" similar to "sand on that same chaldni plate."

There has been some contention about the results, but this is far from what I wanted to show in terms of the geometrics involved. Patience as to the energy produced from this interaction of "sound on the surface transferred inside" to cause a spherical collapse.

Seeing the tensorial action on the bubble moving sound inside, I had wondered about how such a collapse could increase the temperatures involved to produce this "super higgs fluid." Lubos Motl never gave this much thought and I of course am impressionable when it comes to the science mind. I could not shake it.

So we "assign fluids" as one might the "vacuum in space" to illustrate what we have as our way with these bubbles? These claims have not been fantastical other then what the science had been designed for, yet I am drawn to the schematics and geometrics.

So yes the ways in which the size of the blackhole could all of sudden collapse is critical here, to producing further results in what is required of the new physics? So looking for "such experimental processes" is always part of my resolve to understand the geometrics involved.

So the idea here that was troubling was the way in which the symmetry was broken in terms of the fluid flows demonstrated by the Broken Symmetry examples.

My perception is much different here in that the dynamical relation of "the super fluid", may have it's correlation in the Navier stokes equations. This is by "insinuation on my part." How preposterous such a thing to think that the conditions had to be "spelt out first" in order for us to understand the "new physics" beyond the standard model?

Using the geometrical basis of my thought pattern established as a point in a circle, or a point with "no boundary", it seems it is very difficult to talk about the universe if one does not include the way in which such dynamicals can perpetuate the energy within this system.

How is one suppose to find "a equilibrium" in such a "low entropic state?"

If we were to experimentally challenging any thinking with "relativistic processes" how could they have ever emerged out of the BB? Maybe, it was a "highly symmetric event" for any asymmetry to show itself as "discrete measures" defined in relation to the "energy of probable outcomes?"

Where did such reductionism begin for us to ask about the "cross over?"

We needed high energy perspective to realize that we were still talking about the universe. Are there any other processes within the cosmos that can be taken down to such rejuvenated qualities to new universes being born that while the arrow of time is pointed one way, that the universe itself allowed such expression to continue in the expansion rate, and the speed up?

A Higg's fluid? Something had to be "happening now" that would dictate?

Forgive me here for my ignorance in face of those better equipped.

So you are looking for "this point" where things cross over? It is highly supersymmetric, yet, we know that such matter states have been detailed and defined as "discrete" asymmetric matter states.

I made a comment above that needed to be looked at again so I am placing it here while it suffers it's fate in another location. The basis of the argument is an ole one indeed that has long been exchanged by Smolin and Susskind.

Now it is again one of those things that I am trying to make sense of while one could go off in a philosophical direction. While the "facts of the matter" and experimental results dictate my thinking here.

It's the fault of that ole' Platonic thinking, and the Pythagorean basis of the universe in expression thingy. The universe is very dynamical geometrically while one debates the essence of inflation and disregards what allows such an expression to bring "other ideas" into the fold. How this "eternal idea" can bring other factors in terms of the speed up into consideration, while one ponders why such a thing is happening?

Just another fancy way of looking at CNO and the law of Octaves? :) While some thought space was empty, there were aspects of that space "which was alive" regardless of the asymmetrical realization of the discrete matters?

So we want to define our relationship with the world in some computerized method? It has always been something of a struggle to explain how one may see the world as they lose the focus of distinctive sight and hearing and soon realize that if they are all amalgamated, you might get this idea of the gravitationally inclined atomized in some computerized process? Feelings?:)

You finally learnt something about yourself?

A thought crossed my mind. A fictional story?

It’s interesting what calorimetric measure can do when you are looking at cosmological events. So, the photon becomes descriptive in itself?

You are working “to set” the course of events? So we have this description then of the universe and it’s “phase transitions.” It’s behind the “value of the photon in it’s description and escape velocity” and it’s value also “gravitationally linked?”

So technology now stops the photon in flight? We can then “colour our views with the gravitationally inclined?”:) A “philosophical take” on new computerized development with feeling?

The leading computer technologies here is not to diverge from what I moved too in terms of understanding the human condition. This is very important to me, and includes not only our biological functioning, but our resulting affect from the physiological one as well.

So while "you think" I hope to chart the colours spectrally induced oscillatory universe from the "photon stop over" and subsequent information held in that abeyance. Sure it's a story of fiction right now, but in time I would like to see this connection to reality.

It may only rest at this time in conceptual framework that was constructed from what was available in the physics and science at our disposal, while I had to move forward slowly.

It was important to understand why there would be such divergences in perspective and how these would be lined up? Some of course did not want to take the time, but it was important to me to understand the "philosophical position" taken.

One could just as well venture to the condense matter theorist and said, what building blocks shall we use? One should not think the "history of Platonism" without some "other influences" to consider. Least you assign it to a "another particular subject" in it's present incarnation? An Oscillatory String Universe?

So the evolution here is much more then the "circumspect of the biological function," but may possible include other things that have not been considered?

Physiologically, the "biological function" had some other relation? So abstract that I assigned the photon? So I said "feelings," while Einstein might assigned them to a "short or long time" considering his state of mind? :)

More thought of course here on the "fictional presentation" submitted previous. As a layman I have a problem in that regard. :)

So no one knows how to combine thermodynamics and general relativity? Hmmm....Boltzmann puzzle..hmmmmm...and I slowly drift off in thought.

How does relativity ever arise out of such a situation? If "tunnelling was to occur" where would it occur, and where would "this equilibrium" find comparative Lagrangian relations in the universe? These perspectives are leading to what we see in the WMAP polarization patterns?

Are there not "comparative features" that allows for the low entropic states, within the existing universe? Allows us to return to those same entropic states in their respective regions, while "feeding" the universe?

You had to look for the conditions that would be similar would you not? And "supporting evidence" to explain the current universe speeding up. These conditions would have to support that contention.

I am holding off producing any new posts until I can bring the discussion to a suitable ending where Lee Smolin admits the ideas are not yet completed in terms of of our understanding of the landscape?

Clifford has a good humour post about real estate in the extra dimensions. Of course you had to follow other discourses here to understand how one may view what is "current in the thinking?"

This "balance in perspective" is not just one or the other but on how such perspective is formed around it. So on the one hand you have this Anthropic approach in string theory, and then you have the "philosophical differences on the other?"

Your trying to explain it and in so doing revealing the train of thought that was established. One does not disavow the road leading to the physics established of course, and no where is this intentional on differing perspectives

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Alex Vilenkin - Many Worlds in One article by Mark of Cosmic Variance drew my interest again after reading with a new perspective gained from understandng some implications about the "anthropic principle."

Sometimes I even still hold to the idea it is better not to touch this topic because of the greeness with which insight has now taken over. This greeness resides against the reason with which such logic is necessary in regards ot the debate between Susskind and Smolin.

I do not want to be blinded by the razzle dazzle either of men leading this debate, so as to the layman's pursuite of understanding, I hope to show what I am seeing?

While I have not read the book either I am still "drawn to the debate" about what the "anthropic reasoning" is talking about at a fundamental level? Scared yes, and on wobbly legs so I continue.

So as a layman I am curious too ,about views here and what the basis could lead too, in terms of what our universe had become?

If "carbon" wasn't present at the beginning, then how would you explain our universe?

Having a framework here in which to establish the elemental nature of our universe, how is it that such principals inherent in "string theory" should not direct our attention to what is a viable indicator of what will fill the spaces between, as Mendeleev was able to do in prediction?

While one has been introduce to the "allotopes of Coxeter," it is not without some thought that "planck length," along with the understanding of what "geometrical inhernetness?" qunatum geometry, would also spew forth from the very basis of the beginning of that big bang?

So while I have shown the allotrope here, and dimensional perspective developed, what degrees of freedom say that the space would allow all constants of nature to be described here, and allowed such geometrical principals to form in the bucky ball of carbon, carbon nanotubes?

It was not wihtout directing our attention to the immediacy of that big bang in the microsecond of "planck time" that we are at a loss then?

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

"String theory—the hot topic in physics for the past 20 years—is a dead-end, says Smolin, one of the founders of Canada's Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics and himself a lapsed string theorist. In fact, he (and others) argue convincingly, string theory isn't even a fully formed theory—it's just a "conjecture."Publisher's Weekly

Up to this point this distance was kept because I really did not understand the full scope of what is being implied here, from either of Susskind or Smolin. I do not want to cloud the issue, but by association with either point of view, it seems I am destined to be called archetyphically, one or the other?

I had always remained at a distance with this topic only to find that I had been expressing parts of it in one way or another by assuming model implications by association. Either with Susskind or Smolin with the debate ongoing.

Well as Plato ,I am a little different in my assumption based on a model that sees developmental attitiude towards music in ways that we had never considered before? Sound? Or, had thought arose in minds from other sources, whose philsophical based was always hidden in the mysterium of some secret given to mankind on it's journey to remembering who we are.

So I left stories of the deluge of mankind and the secrets to be maintained in model symbologies, that would remain with us for many a day, without ever lossing it's structure.

Okay. I've gotten a litlle extreme with PLato's name use, but in developing a heirarcheal thinking of that "ray of creation," I was always more impressed with how one may see the "elemental discernation of reality" in such photonic expressions and spectrum analysis, that matter based defintions were somehow holding the mind to matter based thinking. I did not want to be constricted by this. By emotions either. By mental impediments to clear mind and thinking.

So by association I have been cast to the archetypal forms and shapes of thinking minds, either on one side or the other? By speaking my mind on the nature of music, that I would quickly be dispelled to crackpottery, by oneside or the other?

“Superstring theory forms a vast and impressive mathematical framework and makes enormous claims. But where is the experimental evidence? What if your intuition tells you that this elaborate construction, shrouded by the sweet vagueness of quantum mechanics, cannot represent the complete truth? Lee Smolin is keeping his eyes open, asks sharp questions, and offers his delightful insights as a critical insider.” Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate, University of Utrecht

Casting Stones

Hey! If you can apply it to each other, then why not I, or any other, to all of the society of scientists like Peter Woit or a Sean Carroll who belong, that they could on the substance of who drives/speak about the "philosophy of life?" Speak about each other or others that would speak in regards to the concepts(pulled all the way back from "a theory")justifing the new views.

Baby Universes

Looking at Smolin's "baby universes" it became evident then that my views on blackholes would indeed serve as the repository of "events," that it would follow in my line of reasoning, to present "new physics." Whilst I did not know, supporting the road taken by Smolin.

INdeed, I have always had a soft spot for his views, because of the clarity of the reasoning behind Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.

So, where am I now in my thinking, that I should be held accountable to Susskind's views, and find that such views speak towards the photonic expressions I have about spiritual life? The roads that go beyond the basis of "Carbon based reasoning" as the predominant value of this universe? Maybe it is a "cycle in time" of this universe that the "laws in the octave of creation" wait for new energy to be put into, "raising" the octave our thinking?

So by where, and how, such injections in the realization, that the balance of these two thinking minds shall we be elevated to a "real value" in society? One that moves towards a spiritual development, whilst breaking the shackles of a "carbon based society?"

Whose Societal value is now aninflationary rate which has been set by the "blackgold" of human kind's dependancies.

Shall it be freedom in computerization first, or just another means to hold society to the machinations of our dependancies, and the forever "sleeping state" we like to lay back down in, afer such "revelations" have become use too?

So the process of discovery is precendent/predictive on the developing what we need in terms of the "information age" that we will all awaken to the truth about what?

Monday, June 12, 2006

If you are a active participator of the very world around you, how is it, the makeup of high energy particle creations could not have included the standard model make up "harmonically described" does it not also apply to our "very thinking and conscious mind?" :)

So of course the very basis of the thinking was drawn in my mind to the very subject enlisted by the minds of our predeccessors, to wonder, how this associative function could have ever been at the basis of how we may look at the World?

Of course it is never easy for me to understand what is going on while we have the issues of the background, versus, the non background, and this brings up the ole debates about positions and adoptives stances scientists have taken in regards to the "duality" of science's "quantum gravity" issues?

Do I have a complete grasp of it. Absolutely not, while it forces me back to the issues, as to what is the basis of this "difference of opinion?"

So by historically looking back, this is a reminder, about the ways in which science people are still looking at things, while holding their positions of thought today?

SEan's meeting at PI, is a very interesting one becuase what it does is take the teacher and student scenario, and manifests the circumstance of clarification as to positions, while providing for a intuitive surge to present itself in the minds of it's participnats.

So this debate then was held and it's relationship rememebered within this blog as to the basis of determination, about how we see the universe and all that is in it.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

What makes this a little bit, well more then a bit interesting is the evaluation you might try to assign reality of the unseen. IN Mendeelev's table, I like to think in a different way, and if one held the Riemann hypothesis up for grabs, what said that any elemental consideration would have been derived from some Probabilistic evaluated state, not to have formed into views with which all nature might have embued itself?

You need a background for this, about how such perceptions could have arisen from the very nature that all things, will continue to vibrate even in a empty space.The quantum harmonic oscillator would have something to say to this, and if held to the very nature of flat spacetime, where would this be stopped?

So such expansions to the entropically large valuation of all that is in materiality, had to come from some kind of "soup of thnking" that rests itself from all the myriad forms that could have been emitted? So our thnking is "colored" then from musical interludes analogistically based. But indeed, how did you get there and you have this strict regimentation to follow in the probabilitic valution that the Pascal triangle would have surmounted, when thinking of Wolfram's work.

How can you not help but think in new ways, once your given perspective about the ways we have always done things. A Serpinski fractoriallization about the nature of the world in a myriad of ways, and the probabilistic valuation about events in the unseen. How could they ever be captured?

I know some people have to contend with the racial slurs of Martian ancestory, but really:)We are not alone?

In such a delightful mood, what has string theory spawned of itself? IMagine, the mathematics that could arise?

So lets say we are in the moment.:)Lets say, that the very existance of the dimenisonal attributes from our early universe arises from the planck epoch to now, are right here as of this moment. This would mean, that time, as measured, would speak to this dimensional significance, and would reveal that the minds capabilities are far removed from such emotive sufferings of a emotive being from Mars. The intellect is a finer color of yellow:)

So you thought backtracking and th eissues therein were finished?. Well I could help but find that those who were disseting about Josephson, were also complaining about the same thing? You just can't win.